Literature DB >> 7551789

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry normal reference range use within the UK and the effect of different normal ranges on the assessment of bone density.

A Simmons1, S Barrington, M J O'Doherty, A J Coakley.   

Abstract

The number of different normal ranges used on dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) machines in the United Kingdom was determined by means of a postal questionnaire. Both femoral neck and posteroanterior spine L2-L4 regions were considered. It was clear from this survey that a variety of normal ranges were in use for all manufacturers of DEXA systems. The effects of four normal ranges supplied by Norland for use within the UK on the stratification of over 1000 consecutive patients into different grades of bone mineral density (BMD) and Z-score were examined. The main outcomes measure the number of patients with BMD less than 80% of mean age-matched BMD and Z-score less than -1.5 over the femoral neck and spine for each normal range. The percentage of patients for each normal range with BMD less than 80% of mean for the femoral neck were 24.6%, 7.4%, 17.5% and 11.1% and for the spine 12.1%, 7.4%, 16.5% and 14.4%, respectively. For the femoral neck, 21.2%, 5.0%, 12.9% and 12.1% of patients had Z-scores of less than -1.5, for the spine this was 7.9%, 8.1%, 14.2% and 13.6% of patients. These differences between ranges are large enough to influence patient management--patients may be diagnosed as osteoporotic using one range and normal using another. The relationship between hip and spine measurements was also studied as some therapeutic agents do not affect BMD equally at all anatomical sites. The number of patients with a lower hip than spine BMD grade varied from 12.3% to 34.4%, and with a lower hip than spine Z-score from 14.0% to 43.4%. Choice of normal range thus has a critical effect on the categorization of osteoporotic patients using DEXA. The wide variety of normal ranges indicates that there are likely to be differences in patient management throughout the country. This will be an increasing problem due to the ability of NHS purchasers to switch contracts from one provider to another.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7551789     DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-812-903

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  5 in total

1.  Bone mineral density of the spine and femur in healthy Saudis.

Authors:  M Salleh M Ardawi; Abdulraouf A Maimany; Talal M Bahksh; Hasan A N Nasrat; Waleed A Milaat; Raja M Al-Raddadi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The effects of standardization and reference values on patient classification for spine and femur dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  A Simmons; D E Simpson; M J O'Doherty; S Barrington; A J Coakley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Bone mineral densitometry in clinical practice. Differences in reference values are important.

Authors:  A Simmons; S Barrington; M J O'Doherty; A J Coakley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-11

4.  Population-based reference values for bone mineral density in young men.

Authors:  M Høiberg; T L Nielsen; K Wraae; B Abrahamsen; C Hagen; M Andersen; K Brixen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  New reference data on bone mineral density and the prevalence of osteoporosis in Korean adults aged 50 years or older: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2010.

Authors:  Kyung-Shik Lee; Su-Hyun Bae; Seung Hwa Lee; Jungun Lee; Dong Ryul Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 2.153

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.